Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202014664)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014664

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

22 November 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about:
1. The level and reasonableness of the resident’s service charges.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding:
  1. Roof repairs.
  2. External painting of the block.
  3. The standard of the grounds maintenance service.
  4. Car parking.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints ‘which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase’.
The resident complained to the landlord about increases in the grounds maintenance charges, the level of water charges and electricity charges, the cost of roof repairs and the reasonableness of the landlord’s management fee. The resident asked that the landlord examine its charges, and increased fees, and explain why ‘‘substantial increases’’ were happening.
In its final response, the landlord noted the comments the resident had made about the increase in their service charge and the costs of works to the building, including roof repairs, and that the resident would have recourse to the First Tier Tribunal if she were to disagree with the landlord’s proposed charges.
After carefully considering all the evidence I confirm that, in accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, the complaint about service charges is not within this Service’s jurisdiction to consider.
Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, apportionment or liability to pay service charges fall within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). In order to decide liability a tribunal also decides whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and if so whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared owner of the property. The lease commenced on 1 May 1982. The property is a ground floor flat, with garage, within a block of 33 self-contained flats with 33 garages. The resident has advised that the car park has 12 parking bays.
On 15 September 2020, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about its management of her block. The resident complained about:
1. Disrepair to the external paint work and to the roof.
2. The standard of the grounds maintenance and that she would like to landlord to allow the residents in her block to appoint their own grounds maintenance.
3. Ongoing issues with the parking at her block, including that there were not enough parking spaces for the number of cars, that the general public parked in their car park every summer resulting in residents and their visitors having to drive around for hours looking for somewhere to park.
On 21 September 2020, the landlord emailed its grounds maintenance contractor to request that it carried out an urgent site inspection. The inspection was carried out the following day and on 24 September 2020 the contractor advised the landlord that it had instructed its team to hand-pull large weeds from the wildflower bank on their next scheduled visit and that it would look to arrange the removal of large self-seeded tree at front of site.
On 29 September 2020 the landlord attended a meeting with residents of the block. In an internal email of 30 September 2020, the landlord noted that the residents were very unhappy with state of the building, making specific reference to the exterior paintwork and the roof, and that these issues had been reported for over a year. The landlord also noted that the grounds maintenance needed urgent attention.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 8 October 2020. The landlord thanked the resident for speaking to them and apologised for the delay in providing its response, explaining that this was due to the amount of information it needed to cover. The landlord acknowledged that there had been multiple failings in its management of the resident’s scheme and that it was sorry for the poor service the resident had received over the past few years. The landlord went on to address each of the resident’s concerns in turn:
1. That that there had been historic issues with the roof and that more recently a private contractor had installed a gas boiler used the wrong type of flue, which also allowed for water ingress. The issues had been fixed and an inspection confirmed that the roof covering was in good condition, however, there were loose and missing tiles and that works to resolve this should proceed in the near future.
2. Following an inspection the previous week, the landlord acknowledged the poor condition of the external painting and that this was likely due to the wrong type of paint being used and if the building was painted in the rain. It was looking at having the building repainted, at its own cost, and would keep the resident informed of any progress.
3. It had previously been given reassurances by its grounds maintenance contractor that their work met the required standard. However, having had the service reviewed by a more senior manager, the contractor had acknowledged failings in their service and had promised remedial works to get the service back in line with the expected standards, and that this work should have already commenced.
4. The resident’s concerns regarding car parking had been passed to its Property Services team who had been asked to do a feasibility study on the proposal the resident had made and to progress the project if viable. That it had asked to be kept appraised of progress and would share that information with residents.
On 9 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to request that her complaint be escalated to stage two. The resident said that:
1. The issues with the roof were not resolved and that the landlord should arrange for an independent structural surveyor to inspect the roof and should carry out any remedial works at its own cost.
2. The external decoration, as with the roof, needed to be assessed and that at the very least the paint would need to be rubbed down and treated.
3. The previous day the grounds maintenance contractor had attended, were on site for one to two hours, the work they carried out was ‘‘shoddy’’ and that the grounds needed to bought up to an acceptable standard. The resident repeated her request that the residents be able to appoint their own contractor.
4. In addition to her proposal for the car park, the resident asked whether it might be possible for her to park in front of her garage in the short term, rent or buying a car parking space, or arrange for an additional parking space to the front or side of her property at her own cost.
The landlord issued its final response on 2 November 2020. The landlord said that:
1. It had it had instructed an independent consultant to conduct a ‘‘full and comprehensive’’ survey of the roof in order to ensure that it is clear as to what further works were required, and that it would cover the cost of the survey and any subsequent works to fix the roof. The landlord confirmed that it would carry out the works recommended by the survey and that once these were completed any future repair costs would have to be met by leaseholders.
2. It was clear that the previous repaint of the exterior was ‘‘less than satisfactory’’ and that there was a significant amount of paint peeling from the balconies. The landlord confirmed that the external painting would also be reviewed by the independent consultant carrying out the survey of the roof, that it would repaint the block again, that it would meet the costs and that the costs would not be passed on to leaseholders. As it was the winter months; this work would be completed during 2021 and that once it had arranged a date it would ensure that all residents were aware.
3. Its contracts manager had visited the property and discussed the grounds maintenance with a number of residents. The landlord noted that there were mixed views on what should happen and that its contracts manager had agreed to turn the steep grass bank into a wildflower meadow and to apply a weed, feed and overseed all flat grassed areas around the site. Alternatively the landlord suggested that the resident’s may wish to opt out of its grounds maintenance contract and appoint their own contractor..
4. That it would discourage residents from parking in front of their garages as this could potentially cause more problems, and that it would be difficult for it to sell her a parking space as this would appear unfair to other homeowners. It would work towards finding the right parking solution for all residents/leaseholders at the property and asked that the resident continue to work with it in order to explore the proposed changes she had put forward. The landlord said that it would need time to discuss this with ‘‘the right people’’, including the Council, and that it would the resident updated on this.
The landlord ended by ‘‘sincerely’’ apologising to the resident for the ‘‘less than adequate’’ service she had received. It had considered the time and effort that the resident had put into resolving the issues and as such it would like to offer the resident a £150 gesture of goodwill, in line with the maximum allowed for under its compensation guidance.
The landlord also confirmed that all actions would be communicated with the resident on a regular basis, recommending that it call the resident every two weeks to provide her with an update. The landlord said that this frequency could be reviewed in January 2021.

Events that occurred after the landlord issued its final response.

On 2 November 2020, the landlord received a quote for garden works including planting and the works to the steep grass bank and flat grassed areas referred to in its final response to the resident’s complaint.
On 23 November 2020, a contractor reported back following an on-site visit to the property on 16 November 2020 with regards to the external painting. The landlord emailed the contractor to ask it to provide a quote for the external painting on the same day.
On 24 November 2020, an inspection of the roof was carried out.
On 27 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to arrange a suitable time to call each Friday to discuss any concerns she may have. The resident declined the landlord’s offer by email on 30 November 2020.
On 23 February 2021, the resident submitted her complaint to this service.
9 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was starting the process of looking back through her complaint from September 2020 to ensure that everything the landlord said it would do it had done. The landlord advised that:
1. The external painting works were in discussion but would not be completed until the warmer weather. The landlord said that this would give the paint the best chance of being effective.
2. The grounds maintenance issues were in discussion, and that it was aware that the residents wanted to assign their own contractors. The landlord also noted that the wildflower seeding of the steep grass bank had been unsuccessful.
3. It would chase up the investigation of the options for parking and push forward progress and action on this.

Assessment and findings.

Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is obliged to maintain, repair, redecorate and renew, the roof and the main structure of the building and common parts, including any communal garden. The resident is obliged to pay the landlord a contribution towards the cost of these services by way of a service charge.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we considered both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We may refer to a landlord’s own remedies policy and any other relevant guidance when considering whether the steps that the landlord took to resolve the complaint were reasonable.
When offering a remedy, the Ombudsman expects landlords to clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion within a reasonable time period. The Ombudsman also expects landlords to adhere to any arrangements agreed with residents in terms of frequency and method of communication.

Communication and record keeping.

It is noted that in its final response the landlord offered to call the resident every two weeks to provide her with an update. The landlord complied with its offer, emailing the resident on 27 November 2020 to arrange a suitable time to call. This offer was declined by the resident.
The landlord has provided a copy of its action plan for the resident’s scheme. However, it is not clear from the documents provided what the timescales were for any of the actions or if any particular actions had been completed. The landlord has also provided evidence of meetings being booked to discuss issues at the resident’s building on 15 October 2020, 18 December 2020 and 25 March 2021. The landlord has confirmed that no minutes were taken at these meetings.
Given that the landlord acknowledged historical failures at the scheme and the scope of the issues identified, it would be reasonable to expect minutes and that any action plan would include key timescales and any relevant updates. This would have provided a clear record of the discussions and outcomes including what actions were agreed and completed.
During the complaints process the landlord said that its communities team may be able to offer the resident some guidance on setting up a residents’ association and that it would ask them to get in touch with her if she would like it to. There is evidence of the resident asking the landlord to do so. Whilst this matter did not form part of the final complaint bought to this service by the resident, the resident has advised this service that no one has been in contact with her regarding resident’s associations, it is recommended that the landlord arrange for their communities team to contact the resident to discuss this.

Roof

In its stage one response the landlord recognised its responsibility to carry out roof repairs and acknowledged that there had been historic issues with the roof. The landlord explained the reason for the more recent water ingress, which it confirmed had been fixed. The landlord also acted appropriately by carrying out an initial inspection of the roof which reported that the roof covering was in good condition but that there were loose and missing tiles which it said would be resolved in the near future. This service has seen no evidence that this work was carried out.
The resident was not reassured by the landlord’s response and asked for an inspection be carried out by an independent surveyor.
The landlord agreed to this in its final response of 9 November 2020 and confirmed that it would arrange for an independent consultant to conduct a ‘‘full and comprehensive’’ survey of the roof and that it would cover the cost of the survey and any subsequent works. A survey of the roof was carried out 11 working days later on 24 November 2020, and found no outstanding issues with the roof and said that the roof was generally in good condition and should last a minimum of 10 years.
However, in correspondence with this service on 12 October 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had not instructed an ‘independent consultant’, as it had agreed, but that the inspection on 24 November 2020 had been carried out by its contractor and one of its employees. The landlord also confirmed that the final report on the condition of the roof was provided by its employee. This was not what the landlord had agreed to in its final response to the complaint, the resident was expecting the survey to be carried out by someone not directly employed by the landlord as they had concerns about the landlord’s actions. Whilst it was reasonable of the landlord to try to accommodate this request as it may have provided assurance to the resident about the outcome of the survey, it later relied on its current contractors and employees to inspect the roof.
To remedy this, the landlord acknowledged and apologised to this service for this failure and confirmed that a further survey had been instructed and it was waiting for a date for that to take place. Having noted that the inspection carried out by the landlord said that the roof was generally in good condition, this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take in order to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord is also ordered to apologise to the resident that the survey was not undertaken as promised.

External Painting

Following the resident’s complaint about the condition of the external painting at her scheme, the landlord again recognised its responsibility for repair and took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. It did this by carrying out an initial inspection of the external painting within approximately two weeks of the resident’s complaint.
In its stage one response the landlord acknowledged the poor condition of the external painting and set out a number of fair and reasonable actions it intended to take to put things right: including having the building repainted at its own cost, and keeping the resident informed of progress.
As with the roof, the resident was not reassured by the findings of the landlord’s inspection and requested that an independent assessment of the external painting be carried out.
The landlord agreed to the resident’s request and in its final response of 9 November 2020 confirmed that it would arrange for the external painting to be reviewed by the independent consultant carrying out the survey of the roof. The landlord also restated that it would repaint the block and that the costs would not be passed on to leaseholders and that given the time of year, ‘‘the winter months’’, the works would be completed during 2021. These were all reasonable steps for the landlord to take.
Following its final response the landlord acted swiftly arranging for the external painting to be inspected on 16 November 2020. The inspection report was sent to the landlord on 23 November 2020 and, that same day, the landlord requested quotes for the proposals made in the report. No evidence has been provided of what works were agreed to or when the landlord placed an order for those works.
In its email to the resident on 9 April 2021, a further four months later, the landlord advised that the external painting works were still under discussion and would not be completed until the warmer weather. The landlord did not provide the resident with any details of what works would be carried out or a more exact timescale for the completion of those works.
Following contact from this service at the start of this investigation, on 12 October 2021 the landlord confirmed that the contractor was currently on site carrying out the external repainting works. This was also confirmed by the resident during a call to this service on 14 October 2021, who expressed her concerns about the works being carried out and the time of year they had started.
Given that the landlord arranged for an inspection to take place and requested a quote in November 2020, for the works not to start until October 2021, almost a year later, is not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to have waited for the works to be carried out. The works also did not take place during the warmer months that the landlord indicated would happen.
In addition, the landlord confirmed to this service that the inspection of the external painting on 16 November 2020 was again not carried out by the independent consultant it had agreed to in its final response. The landlord acknowledged that as the contractor was under contract with it for decorations works it could not be independent. Whilst it is not unreasonable for the landlord to use its own contractors, there were delays and the landlord had raised the resident’s expectation that it would use ‘‘independent’’ contractors.
To remedy this, and to provide the resident with the reassurance that the works carried out were appropriate and completed to a reasonable standard, the landlord is to ensure it carries out a post-inspection of the external painting to ensure it is up to the required standard and addresses any concerns raised about the works.

The standard of grounds maintenance.

The landlord acted promptly following the resident’s complaint, within four working days of which it contacted its grounds maintenance contractor to request an urgent site visit. The inspection was carried out the following day, the contractor confirming that it had instructed its team to hand-pull large weeds from the wildflower bank on their next scheduled visit and that it would look to arrange the removal of large self-seeded tree at front of site.
The landlord has provided copies of regular contractor maintenance completion reports between 21 January 2020 and 2 February 2021. The report of 8 October 2020 confirms that additional operatives attended site that day and the hand pulling of weeds was completed on that visit. However there is no reference to the removal of large self-seeded tree at the front of the site.
As the resident remained dissatisfied with the remedial works carried out on 8 October 2020, it was appropriate for the contracts manager to visit the scheme and to discuss the grounds maintenance with residents. Following on from this, in its final response, the landlord put forward a number of proposals which sought to rectify the residents’ concerns.
On the same day as it issued its final response, 2 November 2020, the landlord received a quote for the agreed works including a wildflower meadow to the steep grass bank and treatment and re-seeding of the flat grassed areas. The landlord did as it had agreed and carried out the works. It is unclear when these works were carried out however, by the time of the landlord’s email of 2 April 2021, it was confirmed that the works were unsuccessful.
In additional to carrying out the above works, its final response the landlord also agreed to consider the resident’s proposal that residents appoint their own contractor should they wish to opt out of its grounds maintenance contract.
On 12 October 2021 the landlord confirmed to this service that it completed the first part of its consultation in July 2021. The landlord said that it was working on a more detailed survey to establish if the leaseholders wanted a higher level of service from the existing contractor or a new contractor working with a new specification. The landlord said that it had encountered delays because of a high workload and staff sickness and absence but that it expected to be able to complete the second stage of this consultation in November 2021.
The steps the landlord has taken to consult with resident’s regarding alternative proposals for the grounds maintenance were reasonable, however, the landlord agreed to do so November 2020, and there was a delay of eight months before the consultation started in July 2021.
To remedy this, the landlord is to apologise to the resident and pay her £50 compensation for the delay in the consultation process. The landlord is also to carry out the second stage of its consultation within 28 days of the date of this determination if it has not done so already. The landlord is also to provide the residents with the outcome of its second stage consultation within a further 28 days of the second stage consultation being completed.

Car Park

In its stage one response of 8 October 2020, the landlord agreed to carry out a feasibility study of the resident’s proposals for the parking area, which included moving the entrance so vehicles entered the car park closer to the garages, and that it would share any updates with residents.
In her escalation request, the following day, the resident made a number of other suggestions with regards to her personal parking which the landlord considered and responded to in its final response. The landlord explained that it would discourage residents from parking in front of their garages as this could potentially cause more problems, and that it would be difficult for it to sell her a parking space as this would appear unfair to other homeowners. These were both reasonable positions for the landlord to take.
With regards to its feasibility study of the resident’s proposal, in its stage final response it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it would need time to complete this, given the extent of the works and that it may need to seek planning permission from the local authority to carry out the works.
In such circumstances the Ombudsman would expect landlord to ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents, even if they are unable to progress those concerns at the time.
However this Service has seen no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident again regarding her parking proposal until its email of 9 April 2021, almost 6 months later, at which point the landlord advised the resident that no decision had been made regarding the parking and that it would chase this up.
When the resident contacted this service on 4 October 2021, she advised that she had still heard nothing further from the landlord regards her parking proposal.
Whilst it understandable that it may take some time for the landlord to make a final decision with regards to the resident’s proposals and whilst the resident had declined the landlord’s offer of a two weekly call back, it was is not reasonable for the landlord have failed to provide the resident with any updates on her proposal between November 2020 and April 2021 and then again between April and October 2021.
To remedy this, the landlord is to apologise to the resident and to provide her with an update on what the current position is with regards to her proposals. If the landlord has decided not to progress the proposals, the landlord is to advise the resident of this and explain the reasons for its decision.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the roof repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect the external painting of the block.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the standard of the grounds maintenance service.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the car parking at the block.

Reasons

In its final response, the landlord agreed to arrange for an independent consultant to carry out an inspection of the roof. The landlord failed to follow the remedy it promised. It is acknowledged that the landlord has now agreed to arrange for the agreed inspection to take place. The landlord is to apologise to the resident that it did not do so following its final response.
The landlord failed to arrange for an independent consultant to carry out an assessment of the external painting, agreed to in its final response. There were delays and the landlord used its own contractor when it had given rise to an expectation that it would use ‘‘independent’’ contractors and failed to explain what this meant.
Given that the landlord had agreed to consult with resident’s regarding alternative proposals for the grounds maintenance in November 2020, it was not reasonable for the landlord to have taken eight months to commence that process. The landlord has arranged for a second stage but does not expect to complete this until November 2021, one year after its final response, again this is not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to wait for this process to be completed.
Whilst it is understandable that it may take some time for the landlord to make a final decision with regards to the resident’s proposals for the car park it was not reasonable for the landlord to have failed to provide the resident with any detailed updates on her proposal a year after its final response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. If has not done so already, pay the resident the £150 it offered in its final response as a gesture of goodwill for the time and effort she had put into resolving the issues raised in her complaint.
3. Pay the resident an addition £150 made up as follows:
  1. £100 compensation for the delay in the external painting works commencing.
  2. £50 for the delay in it completing its consultation with all residents regarding the grounds maintenance.
4. Ensure that the independent inspection of the roof, which it advised this service it was waiting to undertake, is completed.
5. Carry out a post-inspection of the external painting works to ensure it is up to the required standard and addresses any concerns raised about the decorations.
6. Carry out the second stage of its grounds maintenance consultation within 28 days of the date of this determination, if it has not done so already.
7. Provide the residents with the outcome of its second stage consultation within a further 28 days of the second stage consultation being completed.
8. Provide the resident with an update on what the current position is with regards to her car park proposals. If the landlord has decided not to progress the proposals, the landlord is to advise the resident of this and explain the reasons for its decision.